Global warming is manmade and it's a real problem

if you are a man-made believer post a major proof other than "the inconvient truth" please

Try waiting only 20 years for a reversal on warming versus cooling. Just go back to last century and you'll find that they flip flopped 4, that's right, 4 times as to the "the sky is falling scenario" alternating between warming and cooling. Further, carbon dioxide, as shown in the arctic ice is not a green-house gas indicator at all. In fact it is a lagging indicator, with a 600-800 year lag being natural. The politicians and elite of the new world order are just trying to enslave and control you with their "fossil fuel" depletion scares which is not reality since they know it is a natural geological process, and their global warming scare that is designed to turn our society back to a feudal state. Oh, and I bet you weren't aware of their overall agenda as stated on the Georgia stone monument in some number of languages which tells us that in the end, they plan on wiping out most of us "useless eaters" as they think of us with the rest meant to be serfs/slaves to them.

Not trying to start up more fussing, but there was a comment about China and India being poor countries and we would help them but we need to help ourselves first. And then notes that we are not pursuing that. I think that is an incorrect statement right? California has cleaned up their air quite a bit and I think there have been enforcements on pollution over the past 20 years or so correct? We can''t even use Cadmium plating anymore, but maybe that is not about the air we breathe, I will not make assumptions on that. But I do know a tiny bit about physics and know that hybrids are just transferring one type of energy to another and we can''t create more energy than what is consumed so we''re really not helping things much with these hybrids. I think the Civic CRX in the 80''s had gas mileage similar to the Prius. The real deal is diesel. I''d much rather have a diesel than any hybrid. But oh, look at all that black smoke! I do think we should try to make our world better, but in the end, we just end up moving our factories to other countries that don''t have such harsh pollution laws. I do think this Carbon footprint and credit thing is all a bunch of garbage though. My 2 cents from a non-scientist.

INTRO: I am a BS Chemist, skilled in Physical Chemistry. I make my living with molecular spectroscopy. I am knowledgeable about weather as well as I have had some Meteorology classes in pilot school. I study geology as Earth Processes and the history of them absolutely fascinates me. Always has, and there is much to learn deep under our feet as well as in the sky. I also understand that professional university meteorologists only admit to know one thing for certain with regards to long range predictions of the weather – that we are headed back into another, perhaps overdue, Ice Age. This kind of background belongs in the conversation. I have 30 years experience in the topic of physical chemistry and atmospheric warming ameteur discussions. And I once had the great privilege of a half-day long Watkins Lecture and conversation with Melvin Calvin (the Nobel Laureate Chemist) on this very topic in 1981 at WSU. I do not regard myself as better than any non-chemist or non-degreed in this conversation, much less any PhD physical scientist. I enjoy engaging all comers as we are all part of the solution to societal problems (if they are problems). I much enjoy these kinds of discussions, but especially enjoy the progress we achieve when we try hard to minimize emotional responses, however difficult it is to do that. It really is difficult and for ALL sides. I promise, everybody’s goat will be roasted at some point. Yet we are all useful if we will participate as scientists and as peers or near equals and let all comers look at the data with us. I am convinced we should invite the non-scientist to read and interpret NASA and NOAA reports. I also suspect that is what is often missing when journalists read them and publish without bouncing their limited understanding off of other credible scientists (more than one of them). We need a genuine conversation on the topic between all levels. Nobody is DONE researching this topic. Nobody, no matter how sure they are of their current conclusions. There are trends however and the trends have a vary valuable place in the conversation. Much of what Dr. Young is saying about CO2 is factual and yet there are alternative and extenuating interpretations for some of it. Some are facts and some are opinions. They are at least “interesting’ and worth discussing to win over any doubters or to soften any climate-pontiffs. There are also more observations that are just as interesting and puzzling such as methane and it's isotopic distribution and also particulates contributions to thermal stratification, and nobody mentioned the oceans yet. We also need to be aware of what happened in the past when there were no ice caps or when we had more ice ages than warm periods (still do). Ice core data is interesting but also all tentative meteorological type conclusions are still being discussed. The discussion is far from over about what the details mean and it will lean both ways before we are done. I grew up under the scare mongering of the imminent ice age. (showing my age here, I am 50) I would also like to introduce to the discussion subsequent ideas such as the basic premise that none of us want to ruin our planet. From this will follow ideas such as: some of the first business of an advanced and successful culture in any country is to clean up their pollution. To work for sustainable industrial processes. Those cultures who are most willing and who reach to achieve this will be the next millennium’s leaders. (I did not say “succeed, I said “try”) Those who don’t try will wind up looking like the third world places that wallow in their waste today, or who are now just another vanished culture found in archeological digs. So it is on us, right here to decide to avoid willfully polluting. And we WILL clean up our act whenever and wherever we need to, I think that is easy to find consensus on. That said, it is possible for us chemists (and others) to get involved and say “Let’s use the CO2 that is pure enough to be useful that is coming out of industrial powerplant tailpipes and use it to make things like plastics or animal feed”. These very things are being “done by the ton” as we speak and in more than one country. It won’t take as much difficulty as you might think to steer our economy and technical community to use what was once waste CO2 into making things out of it at powerplant exhaust pipes. Because of this I believe sequestration talk will die out (I been wrong before). Refineries have been using each others wastes for decades, and are already starting to see what it will take to use all the free CO2 since it could help them make money and help them claim to be environmentally conscious, a public relations bonanza they would love. They will accomplish this in my lifetime, of that I am sure (opinion). Of course it seems this endeavor will help us the most if we also try to get to electrically driven cars so that all of the burned fossil fuels are burned in the same place. Note – that means we keep improving hybrid, electric and fuel cell cars. All are steps in the right direction even if none are a one stop solution. Incremental improvement is the only way to get where we need to go. Competition in the marketplace is mostly valid if given enough time (we have enough in my opinion). So we should consider leaning towards coal and NG powerplants. One tailpipe, one set of scrubbers if it needs scrubbed,…etc. Note I have not even jumped into the topic “is global warming true” (which I tend to doubt). And I leave nuclear fuel out of the discussion since we don’t yet have a solution to the waste - besides store it. And yet I lay out a win-win scenario that will help disclose if those here arguing are really interested in the science, or if this is just chest beating ego driven argument saying “I am right and so you must be wrong”. The earth and our future are beautiful places. Help me steer this big ship there. OK? CO2 is a useful feedstock to make a lot of things out of. If you want to convince society to require or command such recycling, you have your “opportunity to persuade” today that our taxes should be used to prime the pump. In the end, our goal should be business (profit) driven CO2 control so that the rest of the globe envies and wants to follow us. We are just that kind of country. We tend to lead the world because we know business decisions tend to be correct in the long run. Not because businesses are always right, but because bad business decisions cause problems that put the business out of business. So our goal isn’t ever zero pollution. We could never agree on how to get there. The goal is to do the best with what we have so the next generation can do better. Increments of improvement. Who wants to play?

Mike! Great input! Now this is actual discussion, and fodder for real debate! I for one agree with you. I suggest for consideration that ever unit of currency ever contrived by mankind, and for our purposes ever dollar that we have to spend, depends on energy that people have created. Some create this energy by planting things in the ground and letting them grow and harvesting. Others transform the energy into something useful like bread. Others dig things out of the ground like coal or oil, and that allows us to build machines that make more food, and feed more people. At the end of the analysis, you have to conclude that money is just energy made exchangeable. Thus the Prius owners say, "Woohoo! I'm nice to the environment!" because of the gas pump, forgetting all the other energy spent to make them feel good. As you rightly point out, if alternative energy "worked", it would be for sale, and it would compete without tax breaks or subsidies. Heck, we're not even sure oil comes from dead dinosaurs! Heaven forbid that people should use the internet to find out that other squelched ideas, such as oil may be methane, outgassed from the Earth's mantle, under high pressure and temperature for long periods of time becoming long chain "petro" chemicals - in a process akin to carbon becoming diamonds. Where is the discussion that oil, coal, and gas themselves may also be renewable resources? Nowhere. So as people use global warming as an agenda, and accuse others that dispute their agenda as being "political", others on our planet deserve access to the ability to transform available energy into a better life. I ask you, what's wrong with that? I'd gladly go to Africa and teach them to make steam engines for themselves so that they can use their coal and have their own industrial revolution. We are the benefactors of such hard work; who knows what wonders a parallel industrial revolution might produce. So I agree: enough about us supposedly creating global warming. There are no facts to support it, and there are better things we could be doing with our time and energy!

Okay, this is the one thing that irritates me about the man-made global warming thing (well maybe not the one thing, but one of the things). It is the argument that "even if global warming isn't real, we would be conserving fossil fuels and using alternate energy." First of all, whether conserving fossil fuel or using alternate energy is a good thing is a different argument. The issue being argued here is whether global warming is created by man. The issue is whether all the scaremongering and shouting down of scientist who disagree is complete BS. If you want to discuss whether alternate energy is a good idea then I would say no it isn't. First it is expensive. It would not only raise the price of not only the cost of electricity in your home, it would raise the price of everything you buy that needs energy to be produced or shipped or stored. Higher price goods mean lower standard of living. Forcing people to use more expensive energy sources MAKES PEOPLE POORER. Second, it is impractical. If we turned all the corn the US grows into ethanol it would only cover 12% of our fuel needs. How about solar power? I read an interesting fact that in order to power the "ride" at Epcot on the wonders of solar power it would take a 1000 acres of solar panels. I'm not even going to get into the windmills we put up everywhere for no good reason. How about conserving fossil fuels? Well who are you conserving it for!!! Future generations? Odds are they will be much better equipped to deal with a world without fossil fuels than we are. We need the cheapest energy possible to improve our lives and make the advancements that will help future generations find alternate sources of energy. Or does a bunch of oil sitting in the ground just give you a warm fuzzy feeling? If you want to argue that we should use alternate energy or conserve fuel then argue that. But stop the man-made global warming crap.

According to the National Research Council, a working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, ""Data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid- troposphere - the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming." I concur with Kuethe: Man-made global warming hypothesis has much to explain regarding this clear, direct contradiction of thier primary contention, namely a single percent increase the atmospheric CO2 (which only amounts to 0.03% of the atmosphere!) is causing anything. Well? Rebuttal Dr. Young? Anyone? Or is the National Academy of Science not a good enough source, and should we ignore two independent sets of data that confirm that man-made global warming is not happening?

Dr. Young, you have been invited above to participate in the scientific debate, and you have not risen to the challenge; how, then, can you accuse Joe or me of being purely political? I too am here because of the science. Again, sir, please explain how the man-made global warming via greenhouse effect hypothesis says that the atmosphere should warm up due to the absorption of re-radiated infrared light, yet the atmospheric temperature from both satellite and high altitude balloon data show that the atmosphere has not been getting warmer in accordance with that. Meanwhile, surface temperatures have been getting warmer, mostly near cities, where the combined effect of expanding tracts of concrete and tarmac in conjunction with increasing solar activity totally accounts for this. It is a valid question worthy of being addressed by the scientific debate, and yet you refuse to answer and your best response is to tell me and others to go back to school? If anyone is here for political reasons, you are. Please joint the debate properly or leave.

Dr. Young, thank you again for proving my point. I am not in this for the politics; just for the science and the provable facts. Therefore, if you'd like to get busy and prove your point, go for it. Otherwise shut up -- especially if you have to yet again simply try to shout me down with a pure lie. I'll stake my hard won scientific and engineering talents from Purdue University against your politcal allegations any day. So, sir, again, your job is to prove your hypothesis correct, and we are waiting for your response -- which, apparently you have none, and thus nothiing but allegations to contribute, and "assignments". Sorry, "Dr. Young"; your hypothesis = you must justify. Clearly, if anyone needs to go back to school it is more likely you than me.

Keuthe and Joe: Neither of you are part of the scientific debate. Your interests are political. Go back to school if you want to partake in the discussion.

Dr. Young, if you're so good at it, please post the math and physics you claim will prove YOUR point. This is the way scientific debate works: Pose a hypothesis, test it, refine it as necessary, and when it is well-tested, well-documented, and well supported by evidence, then and only then is it called a theory. Global warming hypotheists claim that the atmosphere should be warming; it isn't. They claim that global warming will make temperatures more equal from equator to pole, yet they contradict themselves by saying this will create worse weather when it is known that worst weather arises from temperature extremes. And so on. Global warming hypotheisists have yet to explain any of these contradictions! So, in your case YOU say that YOU can prove with mathematics and textbooks and such that we're in a world of hurt. PLEASE DO SO. It is up to YOU to prove that you have a point, so YOU do the math and YOU post it here. Joe was right. You think you just have to say it loud, and it is so. Sorry, that's not the way it works. In science, all hypotheses are guilty until proven innocent of being wrong. The man-made global warming hypothesis has not even begun to be proven right, and conflicts not only itself, but also measured facts about our environment. So post Away, Doc! I look forward to your rigorous proof that the sky is falling.

Dr. Young, at first I thought that Joe was using the Nazi's labeling "Jewish Science" as an extreme example of the sort of social phenomenon that is surrouding global warming hype, but after seeing your response, I'm inclined to agree 100%. Sir, you state that I should not "look for scientific literature on the web in html format", but that I should "Go to a university library and use a resource like web of science." What, sir, is wrong with the sources I provided? Is the Smithsonain/NASA ADS Astronomy Web Server or the University of Chicago's journal server not good enough? You critizize my methods as if I got my information from server-o-schlock.com, and such criticism is totally unwarranted. Your advice is clearly desinged to make my effort look bad, and for your own self-promotion! Clearly no one but you is competent to look anything up, and if they do, the've clearly not done it in the way you approve of, so it's wrong. Gee, I'm sorry, I guess NASA and the University of Chicago are totally worthless sources of information. Grow up, sir. I provided you valid, peer-reviewed information for consideration and you have no right to belittle my contribution by implying it is in any way untrustworthy, nor do you have the right to criticize my reasearch of the literature, let alone lecture me. NASA and U Chicago, sir; hardly sources to be so quickly dismissed by you as inappropriate sources.

Clarification: "one" above should read "won one". And before you jump up and down, no, your miles per gallon don't matter, Dr. Plante. The overall cost per mile of all the energy consumed to get you down the road is the point. If people don't have enough savvy to understand that hybrids are bunk, then we're doomed when it comes to even more complex issues like planetary weather. If you think your hybrid is actually a solution to anything -- other than spending more money than you had to and generating smug -- then one can hardly trust any of your opinions on the weather.

Dr. Plante, I urge you to look deeper, especially with regard to your support of hybrid cars. It is well known in the automotive industry that hybrids cost more per mile over their lifetime, including proper disposal of the toxic chemicals in their batteries, than even the Hummer H3. CNW Marketing research of Oregon competently and scientifically assessed the energy cost to plan, build, sell, drive, maintain, and dispose of the Civic, Civic Hybrid, and Hummer H3. The Civic Hybrid cost $3.29 in equivalent gasoline energy per mile, the regular Civic cost $2.18, and the Hummer H3 cost a mere $1.95 per mile. That's the energy it takes, translated into dollars -- and it doesn't even begin to deal with the superfund sites we're creating at Canadian nickel mines which the hybrid owners should pay for too -- along with the tax credits you got that I paid for! Every year the SAE has a maximum mileage competition, and no one has ever one by entering a hybrid. The fact is that if you strip the batteries and electric motor and electronics out, your hybrid will get even better mileage; all that junk does is allow you to waste more gas by accelerating faster than you need to. It makes me sad that anyone with a PhD would ever be capable of thinking that hybrids do anything. Pure hype, and they demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of physics, technology, engineering, and economics needed to make competent decisions in today's world.

Dr. Young, see? You're doing it again. Rather than admit solar wind consists of more than photons, or that phontons, electrons, protons, and neutrons are capable of exchanging momentum with atoms and molecules, you have the audacity to advise psychological treatment. Way to prove my point! I call you out on blatant scientific inaccuracies and all you can do is try to deflect your own errors by saying in a public forum that I should seek professional mental help. Nice way to prove my thesis: that if you don't have facts, you just shout people down and label them. Well the heck with you, sir! Try addressing the facts I presented, and, as I advised, stick to your profession: Do not advise mental health treatement unless you are qualified to do so. I for one, sir, to address your second item, I do see C. Keuthe's point, and am not willing to be deflected by your hand-waving about documents. Even if the effects of sputtering are small, are they taken into account in weather models? Heck, these weather models can't predict tomorrows or next weeks weather, so why should we believe them for long term effects? I'm inclined to agree with the nation Baptist council who last week in San Antonio proclaimed that we need to slow down. You are so sure of your conclusions, yet you refuse to engange in dialog and insult me by saying see a shrink. Hardly a "consensus building" attitude you have there, per Mr. Stark above, which again proves my point. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong, and if they aren't, tell people they are sick?

2) $(a little more) buy recycled products if you can find them- support recycling; 3) $(same) buy local products & produce (www.localharvest.org) - if they are not transported, that saves gasoline and also supports the local producer; 4) $(same) composting turns garbage into fertilizer and prevents formation of methane, which is 23 times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of climate effect; 5) $(save) Unplug all adapters and turn off anything that is on 'Standby'- use powerstrips with a switch for multiple plugs, if needed; 6) $(20, save) use a rake instead of a leaf blower: they are quieter and provide exercise too; 7) $(20, save) use a clothesline (www.laundrylist.org/) instead of the dryer- many benefits: cleaner clothes, clothes last longer, don't get wrinkled, and each load saves 5 kWh off of your electric bill; Cool $(40, save) replace incandescents with CFLs- saves on A/C costs in summer too; 9) $(80, save) use a REEL lawnmower, which you push to cut the grass and requires no gasoline; 10) $280/ton if you have a wood burning stove, try biobricks (www.biopellet.net) - pellets for a wood burning stove- these burn more cleanly with less ash and are easy to start (available in New England and NY) ; 11) $2.45/Gal. try to use biodiesel (B20) heating oil (www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/) for your furnace/boiler/diesel car; 12) ~$(same as 2006 bill, save) rent a solar-electric system (www.jointhesolution.com/mplante) for your home if you cannot buy a system; 13) $3-4000 get a solar hot water heater- (www.sebane.org/sebane_info/members_list.asp?id=13) fastest payback of all renewables; 14) $10,000 replace drafty windows, if you can. If you cannot, use plastic ($10) or close the curtains at night ($0) during the winter; and 15) $15,000 trade in the SUV for a car or even a hybrid vehicle, if you need a car. Start out with something small and try bigger items as you feel more and more comfortable with these changes. There are many possibilities, and they may seem overwhelming. Some ideas are more effective than others: #1 will work if your house is shaded.... but it depends on what you are willing to do. My family has done all of it (#3 we just started and the lettuce is of better quality than the grocery store, #11 will happen when I can find some in my area, and #12 starts in 2008). In doing all of these things, our electric bill is only 200-400 kWh/month, and our carbon footprint is less than half of the average American's use. Now THAT is doing something, and we have all of these things already- just need to use them. No talk, a little effort, many opportunities for saving money, and we reduce carbon too!

I have been following the changing climate up here in New England since the 1980''s when the snow started to become less prevalent throughout the winters.... this past year, we had 70 F in January! And no, this is not "proof" of global warming, but it is a symptom, as is the record cold March that we had, the three 70-year floods over the past three years, etc... Our atmospheric CO2 concentration is at about 382 ppm, and rising at almost 2 ppm/year. This is all well and good, except when the past record is taken into account: the range of CO2 concentration has been between 180 - 300 ppm for the past 800,000 years. The fastest rate that was found was +0.03 ppm/year over the course of 1,000 years. Our rate is over 60x that value, and this is what is concerning. Some suggest that the increased temperatures are causing the CO2 increase. Possible, except for the fact that the C-14:C-12 ratio of the CO2 has been falling, which clearly indicates that the new CO2 being added to the atmosphere is coming from what can be called "old carbon," where the C-14 isotopes have decayed away, which what you get when you pull coal and oil out of the ground. If temperatures have been extracting carbon out of the natural environment, the ratio would have remained unchanged. These are all signs of manmade climate change. And no, it does not matter what is happening on Mars either. We are causing these changes, and we need to change the way in which we obtain, generate, and use our energy resources. China and India are relatively poor countries, and we could certainly assist them in avoiding the large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure building that is now occurring in China. But we must clean up our own house first, which we are actively not pursuing: we already have the "developed" economy, yet nothing is happening. My family has managed to cut our "carbon footprint" to less than half of the average American''s. The biggest source of our pollution is transportation and electricity: we have a 2003 Prius (58 mpg!) and a station wagon (25 mpg), and we are taking care of the electricity pollution with a new product that is coming out next year (#12, below). Below, I have a list of 15 things that most people could do. Some cost money, others do not, and most will actually save money over the long run. Organized by probable, net cost. 1) $(same) For "A/C" in the summer, open the windows at night and close them during the day

Joe... What??? Please visit a psychiatrist. Keuthe... 1. Don't look for scientific literature on the web in html format. Go to a university library and use a resource like web of science. 2. So I'm looking at what you've posted and it says somethings about loss of material to outspace. But it seems to say that those scales are geological. We are not losing material atmospheric material to outer space at any rate that is of any consequence. I'm not concerned with whatever abstract you pull out. And in any event it has nothing to do with global warming. The distribution of gases throughout the atmosphere is a complex question is partly influenced by relative masses but gases in our atmosphere don't separate out based on mass. Otherwise you would have layers of somewhat purified gases which is absolutely not the case. Maybe you should get a book on the kinetic theory of gases. Brush up on your math and do the work. 3. If you don't want to really read up on these questions in a rigorous manner then just grab a first year university chemistry book and use it to get an idea of how much carbon dioxide we are producing on a annual basis. Post your answer and how you came up with it. It should just involve looking up how much oil we use and figuring out the equivalent molar amount based on some average size of a hydrocarbon in oil. This might give you a better idea of how much trouble we are in.

And to clarify, I left off part of a sentence: you say solar sails are propelled by photons as if the solar wind can have zero interaction with the atoms and molecules of a planet's atmosphere. On noting that I skipped over that in transcribing my written draft, I note one important thing: Just as global weather modelers leave lots of things out that could be important factors, you left out the fact that solar sails aren't propelled just by photons. If you want to model global weather, you can't choose to involve CO2 at 0.038% of the atomosphere's total makeup, and not include other small things at your choosing. Thank you.

Way to prove my point. Just as I said, the methods of man-made global warming hypothesis supporters are the same as those used by Nazis against "Jewish Science"; yell about something, and never mind if it is wrong. Kudos to Keuthe for demonstrating that photons can cause a planetary atmosphere to be depleted. GREAT BIG JEERS to "Dr. Young" (do you really have a PhD? and why do you type it phd if so?): You claim to have a doctorate degree in physical chemistry, and yet you say solar sails are propelled by photons. Wrong. The solar wind, as you can readily verify via Wikipedia or NASA, take your pick, is comprised of "mostly of high-energy electrons and protons." To boot, anyone with a doctorate in physical chemistry should already know this, and that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even photons exchange momentum with individual atoms - otherwise these, including photons, would not be deflected when encountering atoms and molecules, either individually or in a solid, such as a solar sail. Dr. Young, please check your facts. Mr. Dodge, you are a journalist, not a praticing scientist or engineer with relevant training, so please stick to your profession; or when you feel the need to comment outside your expertise, please note that it is your non-professional opinion, so as not to grossly mislead the masses. Thank you.

Ahem. Please do try to google something before you say it does not happen: adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993emhw.work...14J, the abstract of which states: "The effects of loss of Mars atmospheric constituents by solar-wind-induced sputtering and by photochemical escape during the last 3.8 b.y. were examined. Sputtering is capable of efficiently removing all species from the upper atmosphere, including the light noble gases; N also is removed by photochemical processes. Due to the diffusive separation by mass above the homopause, removal from the top of the atmosphere will fractionate the isotopes of each species, with the lighter mass being preferentially lost. For C and O, this allows us to determine the size of nonatmospheric reservoirs that mix with the atmosphere; these reserviors can be accounted for by exchange with CO2 adsorbed in the regolith and with H2O in the polar ice deposits. Both simple analytical models and time-dependent models of the loss of volatiles from and supply to the Martian atmosphere were constructed. Both Ar and Ne require continued replenishment from outgassing over geologic time." So, Dr. Young, solar wind does remove atmospheric components. Also see www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v609n2/18398/18398.html which describes atmospheric loss from Titan by the same process. So, Dr. Young, as I stated, solar wind causes atmospheric losses, and your assertion that it does not is wrong.

Keuthe, just for your future information, solar sails use the momentum of photons and not material. Photons are massless but actually do have momentum.

Keuthe, wow. I enjoyed your tongue in cheek response but this is really pretty serious. It (global warming) is frightening and I think you should deal more honestly with your emotional response to the idea that our planet is in real trouble. I am guessing that is what is driving a good deal of the so called discourse on the subject.

Dr. Young, kudos to your degree. So what? Everyone that can pick up a book or google can figure out that CO2 does what it does. More to the point, do you honestly think that our atmosphere is a bell jar? How is it that NASA can simultaneously propose using solar sails to propel space craft but then not admit that our atmosphere is constantly being stripped away by the solar wind? And since CO2 is heavier than air, shouldn''t we have drowned in CO2 long ago? But wait! The Earth must be losing its atmosphere to the solar wind, otherwise volcanic eruptions alone would have bathed us in an atmosphere so deep life would not be possible because the atmosphere would be too deep to penetrate... Wait! Venus outgasses more than Earth, Mars less... hence... Well?

I have a phd in physical chemistry. I want you all to know that there is no question that carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation from leaving the earth. This has actually been known since the 1930s. And a note for Kevin, all CO2 traps heat, whether it is from animals breathing or from fossil fuels being burned. But what you don''''t seem to understand is that the CO2 that comes from fossil fuel emissions was not previously in the atmosphere, as was the CO2 from animal respiration. We are taking carbon from the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. This is all carbon that was put into the ground by geological processes hundreds of millions of years ago. I cannot emphasize enough how certain we are that CO2 has many more bands of absorption in the IR region and that is a sure fire way to trap heat. There is absolutely no question that this is the case, and is some of the least controversial science that there is.

Why are there no solar powered solar panel factories? Why are there no windmill powered windmill factories? If proclaimed "renewable" energy sources such as these are so great, why aren''''t the companies that make them showing off their pet-technologies'''' supposed greatness by setting an example of building their factories completely off the grid? If the energy source is truly renewable and sustainable, it ought to be able to at least produce enough energy to sustain itself. As for "The Global Warming Swindle," I welcome sources and/or arguments to refute any facts cited or conclusions drawn therein. I am especially interested in explanations as to why CO2 produced from industrial activity is different from CO2 produced by, say, animal respiration. Animal respiration produces about two orders of magnitude more CO2 than man-made activity, yet few seem to observe that fact as part of the argument that human CO2 production is significant to climate change.

A great commentary on the concept of consensus comes from a source that depends heavily on that concept, Wikipedia: "Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships." By this definition, Global Warming proponents can hardly claim consensus, as they neither want to hear opposing points of view, nor do they seek to resolve considered opposition before acting. Above all, they clearly have not attended to minimizing damage to their relationships with dissenting colleagues.

I'm sorry sir, but simply proclaiming that the debate is over doesn't make it so; in fact, the debate is now about to begin in earnest. It is not sad that people agree with data presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle. Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesists have failed to explain why CO2 lags temperature rather than leads it, why the correlation of Earth's temperature with solar activity is impressive where as that with CO2 is more than suspect, and even major portions of their hypothesis don't pan out, such as the troposphere should be heating up but isn't as proven by both satellite data and high altitude balloons. You will note I say hypothesis above, because that is what it is. Genuine, ethical, honest scientists hold their theories up proudly for inspection, debate, and critique; they do not proclaim debate as "over," and they most certainly do not treat their colleagues in the same manner that Ayrian Nazis decried "Jewish" science in the 1930s. If anything is sad, sir, it is that apparently our universities are failing in training scientists and technologists to be proud of the process of scientific debate, and to encourage inquiry.